ORDER

The petitioner who is accused in S.C.No.389/2020 pending before the 3rd Additional Sessions Court, Kollam, has approached this Court being aggrieved by the Annexure A1 order. As per Annexure A1, the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled, alleging violation of conditions.

2. The aforesaid Sessions Case arises from Crime No.2981/2016 of Kollam East Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was released on bail in the aforesaid Sessions Case, as per the order dated 13/03/2020, subject to certain conditions. One of the said conditions was that he should not commit any offence while on bail. Later, an application was moved by the prosecution for cancellation of bail on 10/05/2022 on the ground that the petitioner has violated the condition that he shall not commit the offence while on bail. According to the prosecution, he was implicated as an accused in Crime No.197/2021 of Sakthikulangara Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 326, 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Acting upon the aforesaid application, the bail was cancelled as per Annexure 1 order by the learned Magistrate and this Crl. M.C is filed challenging the said order.

3. Heard Sri. Babu Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. The specific case put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the subsequent Crime, and he brought my attention to Annexure A3 order passed by the Sessions Court, Kollam in Crl.M.C.No.1160/2021 dated 03/07/2021 by which he was released on bail. It is pointed out that the learned Session Judge passed the aforesaid order after taking into account the criminal antecedents of the petitioner as well. In such circumstances, the order of cancellation of bail is to be interfered with, contends the learned counsel.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the application above. According to him, the petitioner had violated the conditions imposed, and therefore, no legal infirmity can be attributed to the Annexure A1 order.

6. On perusal of the records, it can be seen that the bail was granted to the petitioner in S.C.No.389/2020 subject to the condition that he shall not commit any offence while on bail but is seen implicated as an accused in another case. Therefore, there is a violation of conditions, and hence Annexure A1 order cannot be treated as an order that suffers from any legal infirmity. However, the fact remains that the bail was granted in this case is 2020, and the prosecution moved the application for cancellation of bail in 2022. Now, the case is ripe for trial. With regard to the subsequent offence also, he is seen released on bail subject to certain conditions. In such circumstances, I do not find any necessity to keep the petitioner under detention.

Thus, after considering all relevant aspects, this Crl. M.C is disposed of by holding that Annexure A1 order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. However, it is clarified that the fact that the bail already granted to the petitioner stands cancelled would not preclude the petitioner from seeking regular bail by submitting an appropriate application before the court concerned. If any such application is submitted, the same shall be considered by the Sessions Court, taking into account the fact that the petitioner is already released on bail in the subsequent case, and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed.